5 ms·

Snapchat has failed the test of feature vs. product. Everything that made Snapchat unique is something easily emulated in a myriad of other apps. When you stri

Snapchat has failed the test of feature vs. product. Everything that made Snapchat unique is something easily emulated in a myriad of other apps. When you strip away the interface, the only unique part of it was the network/aggregator-effect they have. However, they were much smaller than Instagram and as a result would be fighting an uphill battle with a product that already has the network and could easily duplicate the features.

askafriend 8y ago
I think of any social media company as an interface into a network. If the network isn't fundamentally the moat then that's a problem because the interface can often (but maybe not always) be a commodity. In the early stages, a small social media company may use its novel interface as the moat. Interface moats can be fragile but they buy the company some time to grow the network and gives the initial set of early adopters a reason to join. However at maturity, the interface alone can't continue to be the only thing that can defend or provide a moat for a business. The problem with Snap (as you pointed out) is that the network characteristics are similar to Facebook's or Instagram's....aka friends and family....aka people in your phone contacts. Facebook's fundamental value is that they were one of the first ones to capture the graph that already existed in your phone and brought it online at scale. However, the actual network they built isn't as novel or as difficult to build as something like Twitter which is a graph that existed nowhere else before. LinkedIn is similar to Facebook in that the business contacts probably already existed in your phone or on a bunch of business cards. But because we don't want our professional lives and our personal lives to share the same spaces, LinkedIn was able to capture the professional opportunity by bringing business contacts online. What does this all have to do with Snap? Well Snap has the unfortunate position of having similar network characteristics to Facebook's while also being in a similar social space albeit heavily skewed younger (I consider Instagram to be in a roughly similar social space). Snap probably felt like the demographic skew alone would be enough to balance out this weak position but I suspect they're finding out quickly that it is not since Instagram is proving to be a thriving space for young people too. On the other hand, networks like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Nextdoor are all either unique networks underneath the primary interface or they share different social spaces that people usually don't want mixed. Anyone can make an interface but it's incredibly hard to grow a network in a particular social space. The latter almost always makes for a stronger moat. Snap needs to figure out how to make progress on the latter because I think many of their large problems stem from not having enough of a moat at the network level.
- kposehn 8y ago
  This is really well thought out. Thank you for posting :)
dannyw 8y ago
I disagree. Snapchat, at least conceptually to me, is for more private, candid, or even meaningless conversations to close friends. I have very little of a filter on snapchat - and messages and snaps disappearing after a day certainly helps. Whereas with Instagram, etc, it's about 'showing your best'. There's a layer of artificialness to it. Unfortunately, literally 90% of my friends left Snapchat after the redesign. This blame can solely and directly be attributed to a brazen CEO.
- kposehn 8y ago
  I disagree with your disagreement ;) In all seriousness, I understand your point, but what you’re referring to is a feature of a messaging/social product, not necessarily a product itself. In Snapchat’ case, everything that makes it unique is easily duplicated by Instagram, outside of the people on it. However, your comment on Instagram is actually about the marketing of the product, not necessarily the product itself. Basically, if you take away the branding and the interface and distill down Instagram and Snapchat into the core functionality, there is little difference outside the network of users.

askafriend 8y ago

I think of any social media company as an interface into a network. If the network isn't fundamentally the moat then that's a problem because the interface can often (but maybe not always) be a commodity. In the early stages, a small social media company may use its novel interface as the moat. Interface moats can be fragile but they buy the company some time to grow the network and gives the initial set of early adopters a reason to join. However at maturity, the interface alone can't continue to be the only thing that can defend or provide a moat for a business. The problem with Snap (as you pointed out) is that the network characteristics are similar to Facebook's or Instagram's....aka friends and family....aka people in your phone contacts. Facebook's fundamental value is that they were one of the first ones to capture the graph that already existed in your phone and brought it online at scale. However, the actual network they built isn't as novel or as difficult to build as something like Twitter which is a graph that existed nowhere else before. LinkedIn is similar to Facebook in that the business contacts probably already existed in your phone or on a bunch of business cards. But because we don't want our professional lives and our personal lives to share the same spaces, LinkedIn was able to capture the professional opportunity by bringing business contacts online. What does this all have to do with Snap? Well Snap has the unfortunate position of having similar network characteristics to Facebook's while also being in a similar social space albeit heavily skewed younger (I consider Instagram to be in a roughly similar social space). Snap probably felt like the demographic skew alone would be enough to balance out this weak position but I suspect they're finding out quickly that it is not since Instagram is proving to be a thriving space for young people too. On the other hand, networks like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Nextdoor are all either unique networks underneath the primary interface or they share different social spaces that people usually don't want mixed. Anyone can make an interface but it's incredibly hard to grow a network in a particular social space. The latter almost always makes for a stronger moat. Snap needs to figure out how to make progress on the latter because I think many of their large problems stem from not having enough of a moat at the network level.

kposehn 8y ago
This is really well thought out. Thank you for posting :)

dannyw 8y ago

I disagree. Snapchat, at least conceptually to me, is for more private, candid, or even meaningless conversations to close friends. I have very little of a filter on snapchat - and messages and snaps disappearing after a day certainly helps. Whereas with Instagram, etc, it's about 'showing your best'. There's a layer of artificialness to it. Unfortunately, literally 90% of my friends left Snapchat after the redesign. This blame can solely and directly be attributed to a brazen CEO.

kposehn 8y ago
I disagree with your disagreement ;) In all seriousness, I understand your point, but what you’re referring to is a feature of a messaging/social product, not necessarily a product itself. In Snapchat’ case, everything that makes it unique is easily duplicated by Instagram, outside of the people on it. However, your comment on Instagram is actually about the marketing of the product, not necessarily the product itself. Basically, if you take away the branding and the interface and distill down Instagram and Snapchat into the core functionality, there is little difference outside the network of users.